Hundreds of TPODs have been published since the summer of 2004. In particular, we invite discussion of present and recent TPODs, perhaps with additional links to earlier TPOD pages. Suggestions for future pages will be welcome. Effective TPOD drafts will be MORE than welcome and could be your opportunity to become a more active part of the Thunderbolts team.

As per this article at https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050623impossible-dinosaur.htm, I wonder if someone could possibly help me with a few questions?Assuming 1/4th modern Earth gravitational pull for the entire solar system, how much larger might the Sun be in diameter, the Earth's distance be from the Sun, and the length of Earth's 'year' be in modern Earth 'years'?I don't think it could be direct linear, such as the Sun being 4x (four times) its present diameter, or Earth's distance being 4x what it is now.But I have no way of venturing an educated guess, so that's the best I can imagine.

Or might the Earth's distance be governed by the inverse square law for a radiating body?If the 1/4th gravity is obtained by the inverse square of distance, would that put the Earth only 2x as far from the Sun as now?I'm no expert, so I was hoping someone might know better.

This is really confusing to even ask the question meaningfully.What I mean is, assuming 1/4 of present gravitational values for the entire Solar System.So; 1/4 of present Solar gravity, 1/4 of Earth's gravity, and so on.The Sun would obviously expand in size, but how much?Would the Earth's distance from the Sun be greater, and if so, what approximate distance?How many years would the Earth take to orbit the Sun, measured in modern Earth years?

Whatusername (another name would be nice), are you thinking along the lines that the whole Solar System had a different plasma environment than today. The plasma environment of Earth is related to it's magnetic field. If the magnetic field of Earth was much greater at the time of the dinosaurs then the plasma environment would be different around Earth. But we know that the magnetic field is decreasing and from ancient pottery we can deduce that the magnetic field was much greater back then. If the magnetic field was decaying then in the time of the dinosaurs the magnetic field might well have been ginormous.

And so one theorises that this enormous magnetic field produced a reduced gravity. Maybe. There are other theories like the dinosaurs being dropped here from another planet which had a smaller diameter.

moses wrote:But we know that the magnetic field is decreasing and from ancient pottery we can deduce that the magnetic field was much greater back then. If the magnetic field was decaying then in the time of the dinosaurs the magnetic field might well have been ginormous.

And so one theorises that this enormous magnetic field produced a reduced gravity. Maybe.

An Mo so casually, yet again, drops in another of his thought bombs.

Never had I considered that just because it is a larger or smaller magnetic field it does not necessarily have to mean a corresponding larger or smaller electromagnetic gravity field.

Might they also not be linked? Magnetic field has no effect on gravity field?

Or might produce an inverse reaction in the other?

Or that gravity is/was/can be massively effected by the magnetic field?

Would this help with the seeming paradox of mega and mini fauna and flora being found in same locations at seemingly similar times (if that is true)?

What is the origin or formation of our planets amazing amount of sand? Water erosion and weathering? Extraterrestrial? EU geology? Other?

Well MattEU, it is a question of what caused the large magnetic field. Because if it was an electric current passing through the Earth, from North pole to South pole, then we could expect that the overall charge of the Earth was greater. Then gravity could be related to the overall charge of the Earth. And this gives the theory that comets have lighter gravity than one would expect due to the comet having an overall charge.

Which ever way you look at it we need pretty wild Solar System conditions in the past.

moses, I honestly was not attempting to set you up or bait you with my user name.But we now have the opportunity to indulge in a little accidental humor.In a play on Arthur C. Clark's Analog S-F/S-F short story, 'A Recursion In Meta-Stories', we arrive at a recursion in meta-jokes, as follows:You wrote; Whatusername (another name would be nice)...Now I get to ask, Well, whatusername would you like me to choose?

The key explanation or assertion to me was the suggestion that the larger the Earth gets, and the thinner its solid shell gets, the closer to the surface the COG (Center of Gravity) gets, and the stronger the 'pull' at the outer surface we stand on.

I'm not sure what Einstein's theory of the distortion of space-time may do to all this (or vice-versa), so let's leave that out for now.

The vid and article appear to have been 'peer reviewed' by sensible persons well acquainted with the math (which I'm not), so I tend to take their word for it that when they say when they 'crunch the numbers', they get this result.

In view of this, I withdraw my original question about plasma affecting gravitational pull.I'm not competent to be an authority on any of this.I suppose the EU (Electric Universe) theory may still play a part in all this somehow.But the steam-filled Earth and solid crust shown in the above vid and article links makes amazing sense.I could say more, but my post is getting rather long, so thank you to everyone for your replies.

Fred Juenemann had some good ideas. One was that Earth may have been in a Z-pinch that made it long through the poles and narrower at the equator. He thought Earth would have spun quicker then too, reducing the effect of gravity. Also he thought Earth had a thick atmosphere like Neptune, which would have made living things more buoyant and lighter.

Moses, how about 'wun' for short?Lloyd, I will definitely check out your links.By analogy, the first video^ suggests a self-inflating Earth with Fix-a-flat magma that acts like a self-sealing aircraft gas tank.Or more in detail, I get the impression that if any asteroid were to pierce the shell, the vast, virtually inexhaustible steam content of the interior would at first be penetrated, then blow outwards until the magma seals the leak.

I wrote: "I'm not sure what Einstein's theory of the distortion of space-time may do to all this (or vice-versa), so let's leave that out for now."I wish to clarify that I am not necessarily bound to Einstein's theory of relativity and how space-time is bent; neither do I reject it; I'm wide open and especially to the EU concept.For instance; sunspots as windows to the Sun's interior are darker because there is no thermonuclear fusion going on internally, as per EU theory; this makes perfect sense to me.

The idea that Earth was a satellite of a brown-dwarf Saturn is so new and unexpected to me that I can only describe my reaction as 'future shock'; while not flat out rejecting it, I'm at least willing to give it a fair hearing.

I think 'wun' as an acronym for WhatUserName is fair and reasonable, because otherwise I would have to quit this user name and rejoin under a new one, which seems unfair.

whatusername wrote:As per this article at https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050623impossible-dinosaur.htm, I wonder if someone could possibly help me with a few questions?Assuming 1/4th modern Earth gravitational pull for the entire solar system, how much larger might the Sun be in diameter, the Earth's distance be from the Sun, and the length of Earth's 'year' be in modern Earth 'years'?I don't think it could be direct linear, such as the Sun being 4x (four times) its present diameter, or Earth's distance being 4x what it is now.But I have no way of venturing an educated guess, so that's the best I can imagine.

Or might the Earth's distance be governed by the inverse square law for a radiating body?If the 1/4th gravity is obtained by the inverse square of distance, would that put the Earth only 2x as far from the Sun as now?I'm no expert, so I was hoping someone might know better.

If you choose the gravitational constant to be the "measure of gravity", make it 1/4 of the current value, but keep all the equations intact, then I think the following will happen.

The weight of all the bodies surely will lessen by a factor of 4. The Moon and all the planets will move to a more closer orbits (4 times smaller in diameter) - in order to conserve the energy. Their linear velocity will remain constant, however. And that means that they will revolve around the Sun (or their "parent planet" in case of the moons) 4 times faster.

The Sun's case here is quite complex. Everything will depend on what parameters we would choose to leave constant (of course, we may consider the case when every parameter will change, - but that would be a totally different star, I suppose). If we assume that the Sun is gaseous, the key parameters are: inner pressure, volume and temperature. I suppose that you've asked that the volume will change (since it would be most spectacular, probably). Then the pressure and temperature will somehow react accordingly. The basic equation of state give their correlation as PV~T (where P is the pressure, V is the volume and T is temperature). We can study the extreme cases here. For example, assuming the constant inner pressure (~ constant T/V ratio), the less weight the upper layers of the Sun have (due to the lower gravity), the lesser should be the radius itself in order to keep the same gravitational pull and not to blow the star apart due to the same-big (and this time - uncompensated) pressure. Simple calculations tell that the "low-gravity" radius will be equal to the "high-gravity" one divided by 2. So given the change in V (and considering the mentioned constant ratio), the Sun's temperature will also fall - it will be 8 times less than the "high-gravity" Sun have had.In case of the constant temperature, accordingly, V should be bigger, so P will become small and we'll be able to contain it with our weaker gravity. Again, simple considerations show that the "low-gravity" Sun wil become 4 times bigger than the "high-gravity" one was (in terms of diameter). And the pressure then will become 64 times lower.

I'm not sure about all of this, since I don't see how such a transition can be implemented (and I also may be mistaken in my calculations), i.e. I'm assuming here that there was some fantastic "quantum leap" rather than some "physical" smooth change. And for the Sun I was also using the gaseous equations of state (and the very simple ones), so this would probably serve only to give the general idea of what's going on.

So the summary:all the bodies weight 4 times less;all the planets and moons have 4 times smaller orbits;all the planets and moons revolve 4 times faster (1 year = 3 months);the Sun (if we assume that it is gaseous and should change in size) is 2 times smaller in diameter or 4 times bigger - depending on what exactly the thermodynamics of the transition would be (whether it would be a kind of isobaric or isothermal process). I'd say the isobaric process is somewhat more logical, since the isothermal process often requires an external energy source, - so the 2 times smaller Sun is more likely. But anyway these are just simple toy-models, and are quite far from the real world.

MattEU wrote:This video has an interesting idea about gravity and an expanding earth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swCnPOi5qOU its a bit long and slow but i think it is basically explained within about 15 minutes.

Can you clarify that you want an answer to just those specific set of parameters? You dont want people telling or asking why the suns and earths gravity would or would not change the same amount etc?

I've watched this video some time ago. There are a couple of interesting points.But the whole idea of the "center of gravity" is inconsistent with even the classical mechanics: namely the Gauss's law for gravity. In short, the gravitation of a spherical layer is such that we can replace the layer with just one point mass located in the center. So if the hollow Earth gets thick or thin - it doesn't matter for gravity. The only thing that matters is the distance from the center of the sphere (and the mass of the planet, of course). And if the Earth is growing, then the distance increases, so the gravity should inevitably fall, not rise.

MattEU wrote:Might they also not be linked? Magnetic field has no effect on gravity field?

Or might produce an inverse reaction in the other?

Or that gravity is/was/can be massively effected by the magnetic field?

Would this help with the seeming paradox of mega and mini fauna and flora being found in same locations at seemingly similar times (if that is true)?

If our magnetic field really decreased like 15% in the last 150 years, like what the SWARM mission says, then we definitely should see a change in the gravity of the planet. Such a big change during the modern age, I think, would get people's attention, and surely wouldn't come unnoticed. So I guess this idea is a dead end. Or the SWARM people are mistaken.

Lloyd wrote:Fred Juenemann had some good ideas. One was that Earth may have been in a Z-pinch that made it long through the poles and narrower at the equator. He thought Earth would have spun quicker then too, reducing the effect of gravity. Also he thought Earth had a thick atmosphere like Neptune, which would have made living things more buoyant and lighter.

I don't know the guy. But I know for sure that our planet's equatorial radius is noticeably bigger than the polar. I.e. our planet is "oblate", not "elongated". At least it is now.Thank you for the links, by the way.

Oh, and I almost forgot: the 1/4 shift in the gravity would also kick our atmosphere out, so we will have only ~0.25 of the normal atmospheric pressure (which means 4 times less oxygen, by the way). This would mean a significant shift in cardiovascular and respiratory systems of animals in order to maintain the pressure levels as well as the oxygenation rate etc. etc. Of course this could have been exactly the thing that killed the dinosaurs in the first place, - maybe their organs were much more fit for this less-dense atmosphere. And it will also explain why the birds appeared right afterwards: the air became more dense and far more fit for flying etc. etc. Just thinking out loud here.